Off the Topic: ‘The Cut’ article

OTT request : “The cut” article about PC and her wedding , and their subsequent retraction. I do not have much to say on the topic but would like to see what other people think. Its also something that probably desis of all political beliefs may band up on one side without getting hostile to each other

Don't give that filth extra clicks, it's what they want. If you are curious about the breathtakingly sloppy failure of an article by a bitter NYmag "writer", here you go. It is a steaming shit-pile of unsubstantiated, half-baked conjecture from someone who is obsessed with Kim K. pic.twitter.com/exPTZUrMWV

Priyanka spoke about this at a recent event. She said, “I don’t even want to react or comment. It’s not even in my stratosphere. I’m in a happy place at this moment. These kinds of random things can’t disturb it.

When did Priyanka Chopra become so famous (that was an honest question, not trying to be snarky). Even some Aussie news websites have pieces in her wedding. Also, what is wrong with Indian news websites. They are filled with wall-to-wall coverage of Deepika and Priyanka weddings. People getting married is now news? Lazy journalism now rules, news websites are filled with crap like – Internet loves X’s photos, Twitter goes crazy etc.

I honestly don’t care about celebrity marriages, but that article, even the heavily edited one was in such bad taste. Ageist, sexist, I could go on and on. And who curses a marriage to fail before it’s even begun?

I’m glad PC reacted (or non-reacted) the way she did. Grace before such filth. No one should have to go through such rubbish.

Thanks BR . Just musing aloud. I think the journalists who write on these cultural\entertainment non-events always need to have a snarky take . Here, the point that we are bombed with images of these weddings in excess is kind of moot. Then what does an entertainment journalist do to write a piece that has a distinctive voice? I do not envy their job.

This is not to say that the author of the piece is at the very least not misinformed and myopic , but I think that is a slippery slope that these guys probably have to constantly deal with.

My second musing is about the editorial process. Who reads every word that is put out there?

The cut is a magazine with pretty formidable resources. With big newspapers and magazines, does anyone review every word that is put out there not just for grammar and spelling but for not being blatantly offensive ?

The basic premise of the article was that this marriage is a business deal. Not to be taken as a real marriage.

Says who? Really – who’s she to decide for two other people what their definition of marriage is? And what is a ‘real marriage’ anyway? Honestly, quite a few of the ‘real’ marriages I know of are transactional at the end of the day.

These are two people who, by all accounts, have fallen in love and gotten married. Who is to decide that they are not in love? And if they are not, like BR says, why should we care if two consenting adults decide to get into a business arrangement?

And ‘manipulated him into marriage’? What’s he? A child? He’s 26 years old. He has agency. She hasn’t held a gun to his head to get him to marry her.

If people can’t find it in them to wish them well, I wish they wouldn’t wish them ill.

@ Rahul: Who reads every word that is put out there?
andThe cut is a magazine with pretty formidable resources. With big newspapers and magazines, does anyone review every word that is put out there not just for grammar and spelling but for not being blatantly offensive ?

You answered your own question – The Cut has formidable resources. Surely, one of those resources is enough sub-editors to check copy? No one, and I mean, no one gets a copy just uploaded like that. It is proof-read – at least – before that. So someone actually read that copy and thought it was a good idea to publish it? What were they smoking?

Let’s assume they don’t know – or care – who Priyanka Chopra is. Let’s assume that if they did, they shared the author’s view about the marriage. Even so, who in their right mind would think this article fit to publish?

Unfortunately with this article, people have lost sight of what is important. This celebrity, who is in bed with pharma companies ( this is a metaphor, lest someone calls me sexist or offensive),appealed to people to stop celebrating with fireworks, while happily burning away some in her own wedding.
Stop giving these celebrities importance. Don’t publicize their weddings.

Left to himself, Nick Jonas would have preferred a simple wedding ceremony. Men usually dont dream of lavish weddings. Some may do. I am not sure.
About the writer, she should have exercised some restraint to get her point.

@vinjk : It’s just that there was a nasty tinge to this article beyond the usual paparazzi harassment (sample AOL’s reporting on Meghan Markle) for the latter. I am going to switch off the PC button (no pun intended) and this is symptomatic of the racial resentment some African Americans have against other persons of colours esp Asians whose success they resent. For the writer, PC is not a successful actress but just another colour sista who doesn’t deserve white boy. The writer doesn’t realise she is doing exactly what she would rail against white people if they did it to her – defining PC by her race. Yes she didn’t say so but I can tell where that ugly sentiment comes from.

By the by, I have nothing per second against African Americans and on my two visits to US, they were exceedingly nice to me. But I would like them to hold a mirror and turn some of their race consciousness towards themselves. Racism can only be countered through unity of all affected by it, not by some groups believing they have the right to be racist to others because they are affected by it from whites.

The article we are discussing here is very cleverly worded to generate maximum outrage. And the charming folks at The Cut knew exactly what they were doing. After all the piece did get one thing right. There were major sponsors bankrolling this dream wedding and since PC and Nick don’t quite have the star wattage of a Pitt Jolie or a Prince Harry/ Markle a little scandal tailored to wave a red flag at the Indian diaspora known for being hyper nationalistic about ‘national treasures’ like PC would be just the thing to guarantee returns. And we the sheep brained have risen to the bait on cue.

Meanwhile since the desi social justice warriors and their western liberal counterparts have gone on rampage to ensure that #Prick dominates headlines (and guarantee PC a role in a Hollywood romcom perhaps?) issues like the plight of farmers, poverty, illiteracy and the great class/caste divide go unaddressed.

PS: I hate the fuss made over celeb weddings and the damn pics and posts that flood my Talk. So yeah, it is a proper rant (but of course!)

I mean I am by no means a fan of PC the actor and do dislike her hypocrisy and attention seeking trait as a person. BUT global scam artist vis a vis Nick Jonas? Cuz it applies much more to him than her and just because he is white boy doesn’t mean he gets permission to be horribly mediocre.

Anuja Chandramouli : I don’t understand why they have to be mutually exclusive. I wrote a blog criticising S Gurumurthy ‘s takeover of the RBI as well. I am on the ball when it comes to national issues. Doesn’t make it somehow wrong to point out what the Cut writer was doing. So what if it was a bait? Is Trump’s baiting taken lightly? So why should a mag be allowed to get away with it? I don’t like PC and Nick Jonas is just yucky yuck but if we let it pass, it will establish a baseline.

In summary, there’s nothing wrong with telling a mag that their choice of words was retarded. Which in this case it was.

The resentment against PC maybe due to her bursting on hollywood scene suddenly and seen everywhere and her PR team pushing too hard. This sort of thing is not heard of against Freida Pinto or other Indians like Indra Nooyi. And the insecurity created by hardworking and pushy Indians maybe another factor. But one writer does not represent the whole community.

PC’s level in Hollywood and may be in an American’s mind is pretty close to zero. Only these kind of news (her fling/marriage with Nick Jonas, this article) keeps her afloat. She is a star in India but you have admit is nothing in US and comes across as a wanna-be.
The article was nasty. But I think most of these celebrity gossips that come in tabloids are either plain lies or nasty.
May be the article was libellous as well. I didn’t feel so. I read the edited version. I read it only to understand what’s all fuss in the media was about. Don’t want to read such celebrity tripe one more time.

sanjana: If you read carefully, I never said one writer represents the whole community. But this is not the first instance I have come across of such racial resentment. As for being pushy, PC is not more pushy than plenty of Hollywood stars. She is doing what it takes to survive there. Whether in Hollywood or other walks of life, self promotion works bigly in USA. When Ron Paul was once asked why did he think it was difficult for him to get elected president, he said you need a billion dollar campaign for it.

vinjk : The words “global scamster artist” were assuredly there in the original article and that is why the outlet issued a retraction.

These resentments do exist even with linguistic divisions. For example, telugus are victims of this kind of anger expressed against them on twitter. They are accused of fake resumes enmasse. There maybe few bad eggs in every community but one community cant be singled out. Even when a death due to accident takes place, telugus get snarky comments than sympathy. And next come gujaratis and punjabis. The former get their share of hatred more than the punjabis.

Take tamilnadu itself. Tamilnadu brahmins are singled out(maybe justifiably to some extent) and they are at the receiving end of anger directed against them. And those who enjoy reservations do also have their own share of haters. If some doctor or engineer or pilot commits some blunder, the comment section is filled with those doubting their credentials and attributing the blunders to reservations.

That is why we need some who can correct these false blames and notions and bring some sanity.

“If you read carefully, I never said one writer represents the whole community. But this is not the first instance I have come across of such racial resentment. As for being pushy, PC is not more pushy than plenty of Hollywood stars. She is doing what it takes to survive there. Whether in Hollywood or other walks of life, self promotion works bigly in USA. When Ron Paul was once asked why did he think it was difficult for him to get elected president, he said you need a billion dollar campaign for it.”

I think you must have come across such instances and I will not dispute that fact.

Even Oscars need that push or lobbying. One can be called a go getter. And that is not an offensive term.

Anuja, this is not the oppression Olympics. And like Madan says, other serious problems don’t mean that racial bias and prejudice shouldn’t be called out.

As for celebrity weddings and the hoopla around it, yeah, I’m tired of it too. But obviously, it sells. Whether it is people who are fans or people who want to voice their displeasure, these photographs/gossip-masquerading-as-articles are click bait.

What I find most amusing is people who show up on Movie/Entertainment sections of serious newspapers and then complain that there are far more serious issues to write about and why is said newspaper covering movie stars?

@Madan – I think you’re right about the prejudice of colour against colour.

Madan, I agree that crassness and crappy behavior deserves to be called out. But I nevertheless feel it is pointless to do so when the intention behind these pieces is to blatantly serve as clickbait and grab eyeballs. The more people call them out on social media platforms, the more traffic is generated to these sorry pieces, which was the idea in the first place, so for them it is pretty much mission accomplished. The outrage of the great majority is the oxygen which sustains the trolls so why not cut them off at the source? Such scurrilous pieces do not merit a response and it is best to ignore them IMO.

As for the celeb ‘victim’ it a win too btw. They get truckloads of publicity for free and they can talk about feminism, empowerment and whatever buzzword is trending when they release their statements. So mission accomplished here as well. Why should we get all worked up over the shenanigans of the superficial?

“Such scurrilous pieces do not merit a response and it is best to ignore them IMO.” – I would have agreed with you before I read film crit hulk’s article about trolls and Milo. Since then, no, I have changed my views about malignant trolls. Especially if said trolling happens on what is otherwise considered a respectable news outlet. I think they were trying to see how far they could go with it and it’s good they were told off. It won’t lead to a complete end to trolling, ever, but so what. If we are talking about New York Mag in the same breath as social media trolls, that itself shows how much the discourse has deteriorated and why pushback is necessary.

I also don’t quite agree that their purpose was served considered they had to issue a retraction. A more carefully worded if still snarky article would still be up there and still getting plenty of hits. Like the AOL hit pieces on Markle. Of course people are blasting AOL for it but unlike The Cut, they are careful not to give a handle for people to accuse them of something more serious. The problem with the Cut article was the writer having boldly declared that PC was a global scam artist and saying she would “tell you why”, never bothered to do so. She instead dwelt on how PC and Nick got hitched. Now, I have read the gossipy pages of Stardust back in the day and I don’t remember reading such a load of tripe even there. Usually, when people flat out accused a celeb of being something, they bothered to reason why. So I will have to differ with you on this and don’t think this is normal at all. This is a one off, a lousy, incompetent article where, as Anu Warrier suggested, the writer probably injected her personal crush on Nick Jonas and resulting envy towards PC into the article without any basis.

Anu: ” What I find most amusing is people who show up on Movie/Entertainment sections of serious newspapers and then complain that there are far more serious issues to write about and why is said newspaper covering movie stars? ”

So am I — amused, bewildered.

Drawing a parallel, weren’t we told something similar in BR’s Sabarimala thread?

The gist: ” Why are you so hell bent on fighting this, while there are so many other, more pressing issues that are worth the fight? ”

And then there are the omnipresent trolls, who can always be found on the “Reply” thread of a celebrity tweet, who keep asking them to comment on one issue or another. And there are ones who keep abusing the celebrity for tweeting on issue A, but not tweeting on issue B.

A recent example I could think of, was a troll who cussed A.R.Rahman with extreme expletives, for tweeting something about an upcoming project of his. The troll abused him because — Rahman tweeted about his own project instead of tweeting about Delta Farmers or the Cyclone Gaja or some other pressing, current issue. The swearing (in Tamil) ended with the troll fuming with this line: (paraphrasing)

” So you have your own worries, huh? You care only about amassing money for your project. ”

From what I have recently observed — only the celebrities, their tweets and the trolls are different in each scenario. But the abuse and the stone pelting is ubiquitous. I have 2 questions here:

1) Whenever a celebrity plugs in a tweet for one of their projects, why are there are a growing number of intolerant people (especially Tamils; I am not aware if this habit is prevalent in other states as well) who hurl abusive comments at them for not tweeting (instead; or in addition to the plug-in tweet) about a social issue?

2) If a celebrity comments on a certain issue, why are they expected to comment on ALL of the other issues out there? And why are they abused for not commenting on ALL previous issues?

Is a person not allowed to be selective? I mean, what is the point of adding your cent to every other issue, if you know for sure that you are not going to be contributing anything concrete to the issue?

Well …. there is this abbreviation that some people use in most of their social media comments today (sometimes even if the comment does not warrant the abbreviation’s presence). I have always wanted to write that abbreviation (and appear cool in doing so 😀 ) in one of my comments too. So, here goes the pathetic attempt:

Yeah, and she’s getting burned in the thread. Unfortunately for her, people have screenshots of her other tweets about PC, which make the belated apology sound even more disingenuous. She tweeted on Dec 4 that she couldn’t remember a time when PC wasn’t her enemy. Clearly has a huge crush on Jonas, which is ok, but she ought to have checked that out at the door before writing the article.

“Yeah, and she’s getting burned in the thread. Unfortunately for her, people have screenshots of her other tweets about PC, which make the belated apology sound even more disingenuous. She tweeted on Dec 4 that she couldn’t remember a time when PC wasn’t her enemy. Clearly has a huge crush on Jonas, which is ok, but she ought to have checked that out at the door before writing the article.”

They say that once the words are uttered or typed, they cant be erased from the memory. One can apologize, one can do any circus but the damage is done. Like what happened in that tennis finals. She has to hope that people will forget this as time passes.
In these days of screenshots…

Siva, I am not able to get the parallel between this and the Sabarimala thread that you had mentioned. While I completely understand and totally agree with Anu’s comments that you had quoted, I don’t think your comment (gist) denote a parallel with her quoted comments.

I had googled ‘The Cut article priyanka chopra’ 2 days ago. Yesterday, on my Youtube homepage, a Kevin Jonas video appeared. I never listen to english/western music online. It is a bit scary to see how companies are stalking us.

///1) Whenever a celebrity plugs in a tweet for one of their projects, why are there are a growing number of intolerant people (especially Tamils; I am not aware if this habit is prevalent in other states as well) who hurl abusive comments at them for not tweeting (instead; or in addition to the plug-in tweet) about a social issue?///

This is something that seems very peculiar to TN. Too many half baked Facebook Poralis, who seem to get their idea solely from preachy Tamil movies. It’s a little scary really.

I suspect even the initial outrage against the article was manufactured by pee cee’s PR machinery… Far worse things have been written about celebrities and it is not often we see such outrage…As far as I am concerned…Priyanka Chopra is just Intl Sivakarthikeyan…

Lankesh: ” Siva, I am not able to get the parallel between this and the Sabarimala thread that you had mentioned. While I completely understand and totally agree with Anu’s comments that you had quoted, I don’t think your comment (gist) denote a parallel with her quoted comments. ”

I think the parallel is obvious. Let me break it out to you in parts though. In the following parallel parts, on the left side of the equal to sign are paraphrases from Anu’s comments (that I had quoted in my previous comment). On the right side of the equal to sign are what happened on the Sabarimala thread.

Parallel Part 1:
People show up on Movie/Entertainment sections of serious newspapers (who clearly know that these serious newspapers do have Movie/Entertainment sections) = People showed up on that specific Sabarimala thread of BR’s blog (who clearly knew that the thread’s comment section would have support, as well as opposition to the protests against the Supreme Court judgment)

Parallel Part 2:
Those people who show up in said Movie/Entertainment sections complain that there are far more serious issues to write about and why is said newspaper covering movie stars = People (some) who showed up on the Sabarimala thread complained (to those who opposed the protests) that there were far more serious issues that were worth the fight, and why are said commenters opposing the protests (or supporting the Supreme Court judgment).

Anu was on the receiving end of more than one such complaining comment in the Sabarimala thread. I quoted Anu and reminded her of that because I knew she would get it in a jiffy. I bet she did. Hopefully that clears up things 🙂

Siva, I thought the parallel to Anu’s quoted comments would be something like this: People commenting on the Off The Topic thread on Sabarimala and then complaining on why BR is having a separate thread on a topic totally unrelated to cinema when there are far more ‘cinematic’ topics to discuss.

Celebrity marriages are fodder and a source of money for a lot of people, and of course magazines can write the “nudge nudge giggle” article hinting at scandal around the relationship etc. But just because the two people involved have major endorsements and their wedding is sponsored by these does not make one of them (the brown girl who, if people forgot, was Miss World at one point and was doing quite good in a non-American movie industry before she entered the American TV show scene with Quantico) a “global scamster”. Frankly, as some of the commenters have commented above – she is worth more as a brand than Nick Jonas.

So keeping focus solely on “The Cut” article and not takin into account her “hypocrisy” around fireworks, the article was, as Anu mentions “Racist and Ageist”

Vinjk: You probably have a major bone to pick with PC. “PC’s level in Hollywood and may be in an American’s mind is pretty close to zero. Only these kind of news (her fling/marriage with Nick Jonas, this article) keeps her afloat.”
– I am not sure if I would call it zero when (1) I have seen her face in magazine covers (2) she has been invited to give away an Oscar (3) she has won the “People’s Choice Award for Favorite Actress in a New TV Series” twice over. Is she as popular as Angelina Jolie? Hell, no. But you might want to revise that zero number.

Pee Cee is just a younger female Narendra Modi… Decided to push a music career down american throats…Didn’t quite work…Then after a hiatus she was everywhere and created the impression that she was famous…And Americans obliged…Just like how Modi who was just the CM of Gujarat became PM prospect all of a sudden and the whole of India just agreed…The diff between Modi and Pee Cee is PC left her country to find her husband…And Modi left his wife to conquer the country…All who oppose Modi are classist anti nationals who look down upon his chai wala beginnings and all who criticize PC are racist anti liberals who look down upon her brown skin…

I agree. To have only your face on a hoarding in Manhattan advertising a show that you are headlining is not exactly a small thing. (Many of my American friends who got to know her through the first season went out of their way to seek out her Hindi films. So she definitely made an impact.)

Nor is being the first Indian actress to grace the cover of Vogue US, a small thing.

I think she’s a pretty fine actress; she was/is definitely one of the top actresses in Hindi when she left for the US; she is a producer who is putting her money into regional industries; she’s a successful woman in her own right. And she got there without a godfather. Hats off.

I wish we wouldn’t run down someone successful because they are successful. (I suppose I might as well wish for unicorns and rainbow dust while I’m at it. 🙂 )

Yep. And not to forget, that for every Hollywood awards show she has attended so far (even before the Priyanka-Nick thing went public), there have been multiple American tabloids which have made it their mandate to write up an article on her attire — be it going all gaga over it or flat out bashing it. A quick Google of the term “Priyanka Chopra dressing” gives us a clue. Of course, it all started with that Academy Awards presenter job. The Academy wanted to include presenters from all walks of Hollywood TV and movie Persons-Of-Color (starting) that year — from African American to Hispanic to Southeast Asian. And well, Priyanka’s got a hell of a PR team. All of which makes it a non wonder that she has made it to almost all of the late night and daytime (read Ellen) talk shows — multiple times.

“I am not sure if I would call it zero when (1) I have seen her face in magazine covers (2) she has been invited to give away an Oscar (3) she has won the “People’s Choice Award for Favorite Actress in a New TV Series” twice over. Is she as popular as Angelina Jolie? Hell, no. But you might want to revise that zero number.”

Sorry no revision. She is, “in an American’s mind is pretty close to zero”. 😀

A good PR agency can get any 2-bit actor on a magazine’s covers, present awards at a ceremony or make her a guest on talk shows. The question is do American’s care?

She was/is a huge star in India. I don’t doubt that.

Reminds me of one old interview of Shah Rukh Khan. He was asked about plans to move to Hollywood, he replied “better to rule in hell than serve in heaven”.

Vinjk: What she is doing or done seems to be to get some attention and make her a global star. I think that she is the second Indian who is going all out to make a mark. Before her, it was all about Aishwarya Rai. Ash got a bigger role in Pink Panther but it did not work. She also had a show with Oprah. Even Deepika is trying to emulate them. But they will not leave bollywood films. Meanwhile we will be bombarded with all those achievements. I expect atleast one of them to get into the bigger league. The second, third and fourth generation of Indian American girls and boys may surprise us. And there is Manoj Night Shyamalan, the most famous Indian American who has achieved some success in Hollywood.

vinjk, A good PR agency can get any 2-bit actor on a magazine’s covers,

Not on Vogue US. Actually, not even on Filmfare, at least as far as I can remember. Deals are cut with stars for cover shoots, yes, but there is a quid pro quo – what can the star bring to the table to warrant a cover? And if PC didn’t strike American consciousness, then her PR team can send out as many feelers as they wish, they aren’t going to get Vogue.

Think back – how many US Vogue covers (or for that matter Vogue India covers) had persons who were completely unknown? Or as you put it ‘2-bit’?

As for presenting the Oscars, again, her PR team can put her name forward, but they can’t influence her selection. Truth be told, I think that was just the Academy’s PR team suddenly realising they needed diversity – not just women, or women of colour or minorities, but someone who ticks off all those boxes and someone whose name is at least familiar to American audiences.

“in an American’s mind is pretty close to zero”.

Again, not true. At least among my colleagues, she’s not only a familiar name, but quite a few of them not only enjoyed Quantico, they are somewhat familiar with her body of work in India. They are not unique in that.